another unlikelihood for you
James Thomson jthomson@pop.eclec.com
Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:09:57 -0500 (00885006597, 199801161713.RAA14547@pop.eclec.com)
----------
> From: Farrell Till <jftill@midwest.net>
> To: errancy@infidels.org; major-ii@infidels.org
> Cc: GoodGuy015 <GoodGuy015@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: another unlikelihood for you
> Date: Friday, January 16, 1998 3:05 AM
>
> At 06:31 PM 1/12/98 EST, GoodGuy015 wrote:
> > The only bad thing I find as I continue to educate myself
is the
> >fact that most others are not educating themselves. This frustrates me.
>
> TILL
> Well, I trust that Goodguy knows by now that I am not one who is not
> "educating" himself. I started studying the Bible seriously in 1949
(long
> before Goodguy was even born, I suspect), and I have continued to study
it.
> If I told him how much time I devote to biblical and religious studies
each
> week, he wouldn't believe me, so I won't even bother.
>
> GOODGUY
> >You mentioned some nonsense about showing me evidence and I still did
not
> >change my mind?
>
> TILL
> I have explained to Goodguy that he misunderstood me. I didn't say that
I
> had presented him evidence and he still didn't change his mind. I merely
> explained to him that if our discussions were to continue, I wanted his
> agreement to post everything to the Errancy and Lions-Den lists, as well
as
> whatever list he may have himself. To explain my reasons for this
request,
> I said that discussions such as these required too much time for me to
> invest the effort in private exchanges with someone whose mind was
already
> made up and probably would not change no matter how much evidence was
> presented. I was talking about evidence that WOULD BE presented and not
> evidence that I had already presented. Quite a bit of water has flown
under
> the bridge since I sent him that posting, so I think that I can now say
that
THOMSON
"Flown" is the past participle of "fly." I believe the word you were
looking for is "flowed."
I know you love to nitpick about such matters.
Laudate Dominum
> GOODGUY
> >What evidence? It seems that I have been the only one providing
evidence
> in our >mailings.
>
> TILL
> Goodguy has provided evidence in his mailings? When was this? I have
seen
> lots of assertions that were unsupported by evidence and several appeals
to
> authority that were also unsupported, but I haven't seen much effort at
all
> to give valid reasons why it is reasonable to believe (1) that the
apostles
> were actual historical characters, and (2) that the apostles died for
their
> belief in the resurrection. Perhaps Goodguy wouldn't mind running his
> "evidence" by us again.
>
> GOODGUY
> >Is that frustrating to you?
>
> TILL
> What is there for me to be frustrated about? Goodguy hasn't presented
any
> evidence to support his position, and he hasn't tried to respond to my
> evidence. From where I stand, it's rather obvious who is winning the
> debate, and it isn't Goodguy.
>
> GOODGUY
> >Once again a skeptic dodges me.
>
> TILL
> Oh? I am dodging Goodguy? And skeptics have actually dodged him before?
I
> wonder why they did? I have seen no reason to dodge him? Has anyone
else?
>
> I have seen a posting from Goodguy dated January 13th in which he made
the
> following statement:
>
> > Oh, youre still here. Just wanted to let you know I am not reading any
of
> your >latest e-mail.
>
> So just who is dodging whom? From my perspective, it seems rather
obvious
> that Goodguy is doing all the dodging. That happens, of course, when one
> takes a position that cannot be supported with evidence.
>
> GOODGUY
> >Why in the name of Christ would I want your historical follies
associated
> in any >way with me?
>
> TILL
> Well, I disagree, of course, with his use of "follies," but otherwise I
can
> understand why he would not want me to be associated with him in any way.
> I'm too likely to puncture his biblical inerrancy balloon with
information
> that he can't refute, so he resorts to bandying about terms like
"historical
> follies" (which he didn't identify) to try to save as much face as he
can.
> We've seen this on the Errancy list before, haven't we?
>
> GOODGUY
> >You are a good alternative for the uneducated, and it is probably
> comfortable for >you around those people.
>
> TILL
> I have a challenge for Goodguy. If he will join the Errancy list, I
> guarantee him that some of these "uneducated" people on the list who are
> such a comfort to me will chew him up and spit him out before he has time
to
> know what has happened. That's because this list has people on it who
have
> researched biblical issues for longer than Goodguy has been alive. If he
> doubts me, I defy him to accept my challenge. "Subscribe errancy" in the
> message window to major-ii@infidels.org will put him on the list. Will
he
> do it?
>
> GOODGUY
> >You mentioned that I, alone, am a waste of time.
>
> TILL
> Yes, and I stand by that statement. The shallowness of Goodguy's
knowledge
> of the Bible and Christian history has been exposed already on the list,
yet
> it takes a lot of time to expose even superficiality. If I am going to
> invest the time to do this, I want more than an audience of one whose
mind
> is already made up and probably would not change no mattter how much
> convincing evidence I might present. Earlier today, I checked the
> enrollment on the Errancy list and found that we now have 116 members.
In
> that number, there are undoubtedly some who are willing to weigh evidence
> and reach whatever conclusions the evidence leads to, but to spend hours
> sending private postings to people like Goodguy? No, I have neither the
> time nor the patience to do that.
>
> GOODGUY
> >It seems by your mailings that I have been a great help to you, for you
> obviously >have done little research.
>
> TILL
> Goodguy has been a great help to me? I'm going to surprise him and agree
> with him. Everyone knows that I think that biblicists are their own
worst
> enemies. Every time they try to defend the Bible in open forum against
an
> informed opposition, they wind up hanging themselves and twisting in the
> wind. Every inerrantist who comes onto the list and makes a spectacle of
> his/her inability to defend the claim that the Bible is the "inspired
word
> of God" gives Christian lurkers on the list a chance to see their
failures.
> That's why I want people like Goodguy to post to the list. In his case,
he
> wouldn't join the list, so I posted his messages anyway, and he has been
a
> great help to me in accomplishing what this list was set up to do. For
> that, I thank him.
>
> GOODGUY
> >You however are a waste of my time (in regards to e-mail) you have shown
me
> >nothing new, only very shallow information with no evidence to back it
up.
>
> TILL
> Well, it is very strange that Goodguy didn't tear into me and rip my
> arguments to pieces and show how "shallow" my information was. What we
> have, of course, is just another inerrantist trying to save face by
> declaring victory without even having fought a battle. We have seen it
all
> before.
>
> GOODGUY
> >Good luck with your shallow studies, friend. Get in touch with me when
you
> are >ready to debate with the "big boys."
>
> TILL
> Goodguy, I debated Dr. Norman Geisler at Columbus, College, in Columbus,
GA,
> and Michael Horner at Seattle Pacific University, and the "boys" don't
get
> much bigger than they are. In addition to these two, I have debated
several
> others who were reputed to be the top debaters in their churches. I
think I
> can say, then, that I am ready to debate the "big boys." Do you know
where
> I can find any? Geisler has informed me that he is too busy for a return
> engagement, this time at the seminary where he is dean, and so have all
of
> the others refused to debate again, except for Horner, whom I lost
contact
> with, and one lone Church-of-Christ preacher, who has said that he is
> willing to give it another try.
>
> GOODGUY
> >>Or better than that when you want to give your life to Christ.
> >
>
> TILL
> As I have told many others who sign off with this trite platitude, I have
> been there and tried this. It's just not going to happen again. It's
just
> not possible for me to "give my life" to someone who very likely didn't
> exist and if he did is now dead and has been for two millennia.
>
> By the way, I'm not finished with the apostles yet, but I had to put the
> subject on hold in order to attend to other matters. When my postings
> resume, hop right in any time you feel like it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> Farrell Till
> Skepticism, Inc.
> jftill@midwest.net